I have heard the critique of Bill Nichols' work that he is excessively invested in taxonomy. (See Stella Bruzzi's book on New Documentary, for instance). And it's true that his latest article on documentary reenactment (Critical Inquiry Autumn 2008) is yet another taxonomy. But it's worth reading, I think, precisely because it articulates the differences that often get elided in claims that pseudodocumentary reenactment does X or Y. There is a real inductive, descriptive spirit in Nichols work that I think is worth emulating.